Why should anyone get Inventor instead of solidworks?

[explodingbee]

As I understand it Inventor is designed to do more or less the same things as Solidworks, easy 3D modeling.  I think the cheapest version of Inventor is $5,000 and the cheapest version of Solidworks is $4,000.  Since Solidworks is generally considered the industry standard, the best out there, why would anyone get Inventor (except for reasons like that an entire company is already using AutoCAD and doesn't want to switch)?  Is there anything of significance that Inventor does better than Solidworks?

[explodingbee]

In the help file on the file page (in Creo Elements Modeling Express) titled "Load or Import FIles" it says: " Use2D with a *.mi file to cause Creo Elements/Direct Annotation to start and load the ; Consistent with this, I have not been able to import or load any 3D files which I created in AutoCAD.  But I finally was able to import older 2D drawings.  I have a lot of work done in 3D and it would not be sufficient to import only in 2D. 

I don't see a way to import a file which is different from what we do to open a file (i.e., click file then open).  I don't see a way to import a 3D drawing.  Maybe I am missing something.

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[explodingbee]

Thank you for your thoughts here.  These are things only someone experienced with these programs could say.  I have already downloaded a free trial version of Inventor. I plan to also try Solid Edge and, I think, Solidworks. 

[explodingbee]

Hi,

A number of people have recommended Solid Edge, as you have. As I have said in other posts, I plan to try trial version (I need to buy and install Windows 7 first).  I am not into paying $130 per month (unless that money went toward a purchase of the entire program later) but I could pay a larger amount for the whole program.

[explodingbee]

Hi,

I have attached a drawing.  It is a modified version of what I am doing, with some stuff deleted and some stuff altered, so that I am not revealing too much proprietary stuff.  It just gives you a rough idea of the type of stuff I am working on.  Maybe you can suggest which program would be best?  Solidworks, Solid Edge, Inventor, or maybe to just keep using AutoCAD 2013 (which I am presently doing).

If you have any thoughts on this I would be interested. 

Regarding the other comments in your post, I do plan to try the trial versions of these programs.  I have already downloaeded the Inventor trial version.

Best regards,

Vincent

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[stevec781]

---

@explodingbee wrote:

I have attached a drawing. 

If you have any thoughts on this I would be interested. 

---

Inventor, Swx and SE are all overkill for you.  Maybe have a look at Bricscad which might open your existing 3D models.

[jletcher]

Told you they would remove my post....

  Well not all they just deleted parts of it .. 

 I will look at your file and get back with you.

[chad38]

Based on what I see in the dwg you attached, I'd actually say that any of the 3 modeling programs (inventor, solid edge, solid works) would probably suit you just fine. You definitely need to be able to make prints, so the only thing I would rule out at the moment would be fusion.  (By the way, Autocad crashed while viewing your dwg and I tried rotating the view)

Oh, I test drove fusion over the weekend, and it reminds me immensely about another program....Google Sketch-Up. Which, by the way, is pretty much free, for the basic version. It actually installs pretty easily too. Try it out.

Me, I would be quick to say that Solid Edge would be the better program to use, but that's surely because I've been using it for longer.

[chad38]

Oh, wow. I didn't think they would actually censor your post......... hey autodesk, 1984 called, it wants its plot device back..

[cmcconnell]

He was talking about the Beta - he is bound by an NDA to not do so. Autodesk has every right to censor his post.

Cory McConnell
President | Mechanix Design Solutions Inc.
e: cory@mechanixdesigns.com
m: 403.875.3393403.875.3393>
w: www.mechanixdesigns.com403.875.3393>

[jletcher]

Incorrect about the NDA.

I am not to tell you about what is in 2015 and I did not say one word about any features in it I just said it is going in the wrong direction and they did not listen to the end user....

[cmcconnell]

Suit yourself.

Cory McConnell
President | Mechanix Design Solutions Inc.
e: cory@mechanixdesigns.com
m: 403.875.3393403.875.3393>
w: www.mechanixdesigns.com403.875.3393>

[explodingbee]

THanks for your thoughts.  I have the sense I should have a full fledged CAD program.  I don't know how capable Bricscad is but I will take a look at it.

[explodingbee]

Thanks for your thoughts.  I will take a look at Sketch Up.  Regarding Solid Edge, I have downloaded it (but have not yet activated it; I need to get and install Windows 7).  A rep from Siemens called me about Solid Edge and he will be sending me info. 

[stevec781]

---

@explodingbee wrote:

THanks for your thoughts.  I have the sense I should have a full fledged CAD program.  I don't know how capable Bricscad is but I will take a look at it.

---

Then definitely include Ironcad in your list - its cheaper.  Demos are really hard, you have 30 days to learn and test the program, and all of them will do what you need (based on your example). It will take months to properly evaluate them all and you probably wont find all the bugs.  So it really comes down to price, and which one you want to develop your skills with for the future.  To speed the process up check out youtube, lots of examples and tutorials for all of them.  In your case I would rule out inventor because of the topology and associativity limitations and solidedge because the way it steps you through the commands is painful and slow.

Also keep in mind that once you buy your money is completely gone.  Unlike any other item you buy, you can not re-sell your software, so if it turns out to not be the right tool for you, too bad, it's money down the drain.  That said you can negotiate a trade in price if you need to switch.

[Dan_Murphy]

...because the 2D portion of SW is a nightmare. With Inventor you can export to AutoCAD (if desired) to do your 2D line work. AutoCAD is far better at 2D than SW.

[explodingbee]

Thank you for your thoughts, Stevec781.  I will definitely look at Ironcad.  I think at least two people have recommended it. 

But you are saying Solid Edge is not so good and other people say it is the best. 

You also wrote: "In your case I would rule out inventor because of the topology and associativity limitations"  You comment is of interest to me but I don't know what you mean.  What are the "topology and associativity limitations" of Inventor?  What does that mean?

[stevec781]

---

@explodingbee wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts, Stevec781.  I will definitely look at Ironcad.  I think at least two people have recommended it. 

But you are saying Solid Edge is not so good and other people say it is the best. 

You also wrote: "In your case I would rule out inventor because of the topology and associativity limitations"  You comment is of interest to me but I don't know what you mean.  What are the "topology and associativity limitations" of Inventor?  What does that mean?

---

Associativity was what I mentioned in post #23.  This problem just caught me out, I have a hole in one part related to an angled tube in another, so I have to use the non associative project cut edges.  An update moved the tube, but I didnt realise this and didnt see the hole was now wrong.  The parts were made and then the client rang up with the hey these dont fit call.  I had to fix the model, then cut and ship him a new part with the correct hole location at my expense.

For topology changes see this thread http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Inventor-General/How-to-handle-a-basic-topology-change/m-p/4359463/hig...  You can download the assembly and watch it fail.  I tested the exact same scenario in Swx, no problem.

The buzz about Se is the synchronous technology, which is just a fancy way of saying direct editing.  When it comes to history based modelling, what they call ordered modelling, its pretty much the same everything else  The direct editing in SE looks ok, but you have to switch to which mode you want to work in all the time.  Ironcad combines direct and history workflows seamlessly and has done for many years.  Inv has to switch to Fusion, which is a pain, and Swx doesnt have it.  I have only tested SE but didnt like the help or interface, I found it difficult to figure out.  If you dig around the SE blog you will see that many Se users have yet to bother with the direct editing side of it, in which case they arent doing anything special, just using another history based system.

This is an old article but it explains how Ironcad works and compares it to SE.  http://www.deelip.com/?p=3734

[chris_in_stockholm]

I’m working as a consultant doing mechanical engineering and design.

Since November 2011 I have been working for a company using Inventor.

It was a chock to learn how tedious and inefficient Inventor is compared to SolidWorks.

It’s very hard to find a truly fair and unbiased comparison between cad-software.

All users don’t value the same things and longtime users may not be aware of the alternatives.

Longtime users live in their bubble and are not aware of what they are missing.

I continuously keep an eye on what is going on in the industry.

So far I have not regretted that I jumped from Mechanical Desktop to SolidWorks 1998.

There are alternatives but no one that is (in my opinion) overall superior to SolidWorks.

Short list of things I don’t like with Inventor:

GUI:

Customization in general not user friendly.

Some keys locked, ex. F4 for rotate model and cannot be changed.

Have to hold down F4 to rotate rather than just click once. (Toggle function on/off)

History tree does not communicate if sketch fully defined.

History tree does not communicate for if a part is fully constrained.

Hard to find features in a model. Selecting feature in modell does not highlight feature in tree.

Sketch:

Have to project edges to place dimensions or relations to existing geometry.

Existing body obscures active sketch if on back side or in the middle of body.

Have to use temporary slice to see and by doing that you may not be able to relate to

existing geometry you want to relate to.

Constrains:

In general complicated and tedious and time consuming.

Mate/flush and the often hard to see arrows is a pain.

Angular constrains extremely hard

Measure tool:

Almost useless

I very often have to create a sketch and project geometry and add dimensions instead

of easily measure directly.

Adaptivity:

All kind of strange things happens.

Not updating

Not updating as expected

Part position freeze in assys

ipart:

GUI for creating variants Quite ok actually.

Extra folder with children is evil and creates all kinds of problems with the Vault.

Not possible to create a mirrored version of an iPart and inherit variant family.

iAssy:

GUI for creating variants Quite ok actually.

Forgets which variant of iParts to use. Over and over again.

Constrains blows up and parts moves to wrong positions

If a an already placed part is changed to an iPart constrains blows up and it’s not possible to change version of the iPart. Have to replace the part.

Exploded views:

In a separate presentation file-type. Stupid!

Often fails to update especially if using iAssys.

Vault Basic:

System level problems:

Full acces to work folder without using Vault UI.

The system has two main doors instead of one.

Possible to get ownership of an older version of a filed stored in local work space and the overwriting

a newer version in the Vault.

That is a very basic functionality a PDM-system must be able to take care of.

The Vault has issues with handling iParts andiAssys.

General:

Slow performance. Especially if using iParts & iAssys.

The lack of user-friendliness and  “flow”  throughout the program severely  reduces efficiency and joy.

During 2013 we had major stability issues with iAssys. It was confirmed by AutoDesk developers.

When talking with the reseller about this and other problems they showed very little interest.

We even had a meeting with Autodesk. They turned the meeting into a marketing meeting

telling how great Autodesk are instead of showing interest and care for our problems.

Advice and conclusion:

Open your eyes. Check out alternatives.

Make your own evaluation based on your needs and expectations.

PS)  The company I’m working for has switched to SolidWorks and PDM enterprise 🙂

[yannick3]

Hi
I use both software since 2007 and I think you need some serious training with inventor.
From my side I hate solid works

[chris_in_stockholm]

"I think you need some serious training with inventor"

LOL

Are you an ADESK employe?

That is the standard answer from ADESK, reseller and on this forum when somebody says something negative about Inventor.

I have many years (15+) of experience with 3D-modeling and I´m very strict when it comes to modeling principles.

When we had severe problems with unstable iAssys/iParts in 2013 release we had the reseller look at our files.

And they had nothing to complain about! Everything was strictly by the book!

To be accused of beeing an idiot not knowing how to use the software sucks.

Especially by persons who don't know anything about your skills.

Example of problem files:

An assy with 5 parts, 5 iparts, 1 standard component, 2 sub assys and 1 top level assy with 9 vaiants oin the top level assy.

The assy crashed 13 times in one day. Bug confirmed by ADESK developers.

In Inventor the total number of files were 51 in 14 sub folders due to the architecture of iParts/iAssy.

Total file size inflated to almost 1 GB

Remodelled the same design in SW in less than 5 h and the total file size was less than 10 MB.

14 files only. No children cos SW use configurations without children. No crashes.

Until today we still have not got an explanation why the file size blow up.

Another problem was that the weight of the design did not update when iParts where changed.

Bug confirmed by ADESK. Solved in 2014.

Embarrasing to have such bugs after so many releases!

The project involved FEM. Finding a lighter stiffer design.

The project had to be put on hold cos Inventor was not good enough.

We told our reseller and ADESk that we were considering changing from Inventor and

gave them a chance to prove that other companys actually used iParts/iAssys without problem.

After 4 months they were still not able to show us one company.

Release 2014 seems to be much more stable but the iPart/iAssy concept built on children is still a pain in the ****.

A funny thing is that SolidEdge use the ADESK priciple for parts and the SW configurations way for assys.

(Or the other way around. Don't remember for sure)

I asked why on SE forum. They did not have an answer othre than it just happened and that it works

so why change?

Another rumour we heard was that a large company building complex machinery used Inventor

for basic design but SW for complex assys documenting variants. 

The reason was unstable iAssys and slow performance in complex assys with variants.

95% of my list is facts not opinions.

So the "you need training" argument is just empty speculation without ground.

Wy bother writing in this forum?

Good question. I think one reason is that I feel sorry for the Inventor users.

It's sad to see so many persons arguing and defending poor functionality and

user hostile menus and UI's

Inventor is almost as capable as SW but it's far from userfriendly.

I will probably not write any more in this forum unless I see some really stupid claims

or missleading information beeing told.

Maybe I will get banned for telling the truth.